The Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) test is the negative side of the Article 2(17) sustainable-investment triple test. To qualify as a 'sustainable investment' under SFDR, an investment in an economic activity that contributes to an environmental / social objective must ALSO not significantly harm any of the other environmental + social objectives. The DNSH assessment under SFDR is operationalised via the SFDR RTS (Article 7 + Annex I PAI indicators as the principal DNSH harm indicators - if an investment has a material adverse impact on a PAI indicator that is considered evidence that the investment is significantly harming a sustainability objective). Unlike the Taxonomy Regulation DNSH (Article 17 Taxonomy + technical screening criteria per environmental objective), the SFDR DNSH is principle-based + relies on PAI indicators + FMP methodology rather than a specific TSC threshold. The June 2023 ESA Q&A confirmed FMPs may use a quantitative + qualitative DNSH approach + must disclose the methodology in pre-contractual + website + periodic templates.
This control maps to 2 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.